Grooming Bennett

Written By: Anthony R0bins - Date published: 7:20 am, September 30th, 2014 - 85 comments
Categories: leadership, national, paula bennett - Tags: paula bennett

Labour’s leadership process involves the members – democracy in all its participatory, messy glory. The Nats prefer to do things the old fashioned way – smoke filled rooms, their members content to be dictated to. Speaking of leadership, Key is clearly grooming Bennett for succession:

Finance role for Bennett — Key

Prime Minister John Key is not expected to detail National’s post-election reshuffle until later his week. He has already previewed one change, however, telling RNZ that Paula Bennett will move from social development to a finance role.

“We have a lot of faith in Paula, we think she’s has a pretty bright future with the party, and she’s keen to, I think, widen out her cabinet experience and demonstrate she’s got skills in other areas,” the PM-elect said. … Ms Bennett is increasingly seen as a future leader by party insiders.

Paula Bennett ‘a big asset’ for National – Key

Prime Minister John Key has praised Paula Bennett as “a big asset” for National, but will not go as far as tipping her to succeed him. … Asked at a press conference today if she could lead National one day, Mr Key said “I hope so”, before adding that there were many contenders.

That muffled shrieking sound you hear in the background is just Judith Collins expressing her full support. Pay it no mind.

85 comments on “Grooming Bennett ”

Comments are now closed

Tiger Mountain 1

30 September 2014 at 8:10 am

Pull’yer Benefit has more derogatory nicknames than most tory MPs and deservedly so. Dominatrix styled Nat women can give other women a bad rap. And this one has set noteworthy lows of personal hypocrisy and dodgy behaviour. Privacy violator, electorate jumper and more aggressive than passive bennie basher.

The Nats have a good eye for succession as few, particularly back benchers, seem to linger too long. Generous compensation being one allegation–“don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out”… Crusher’s aspirations look crushed for all money too.

Some resources have been put into Paula’s ‘professional development’ with her US trips and behind the scenes training. Arch right winger–Rebstock–the other Paula,took her under her Randian cape and developed the real War on the Poor that WINZ and MSD have been waging. Bashing dirty filthy bennies is the second most popular kiwi sport after rugby and doesn’t Bennett know it.
- cogito 1.1
  
  30 September 2014 at 11:21 am
  
  “Some resources have been put into Paula’s ‘professional development’ with her US trips and behind the scenes training”.
  
  A viper with lipstick, that’s all she is…. par for the course. And it shows through in just about every interview, the moment she is pressed on a topic and her sickly smile starts to fade.
- Andrea 1.2
  
  30 September 2014 at 2:15 pm
  
  Never mine the leadership!
  
  Which unfortunates are going to get her leopard-print paws in their lives NOW?!
  
  (Health? Please, no. Jiggly shades of Shipley.)
- Murray Olsen 1.3
  
  1 October 2014 at 1:17 am
  
  One if my relatives who had a youthful dalliance with NAct, said she was totally thick, and to such an extent that it stood out at their events. Among that company, that’s saying something. I haven’t seen anything to suggest he might be wrong.
srylands 2

30 September 2014 at 8:23 am

The Labour Party’s new “way” of electing Parliamantary leaders, and hence a potential Prime Minister, is both unusual, and undesirable. It provides vested interests (unions) with the capacity to dictate a will to elected Parliamentary respresentataves. As we can see now, those representatives then rebel, understanding that their role is to represent all New Zealanders they represent, not the interests of Party members.

Apart from the recent experiment in the ALP, it is not a practice that is present, in this form, in any of the constitutional monarchies or parliamentary republics. It won’t catch on.

As for the central premise of the article, well duh. Ms Bennett is a candidate for future Leader. How surprising. From the ipredict market, I think we all were aware of that.

As for smoke filled rooms, I think you will find that the rooms smell of Proraso and Chanel. You must be thinking of your Caucus rooms circa 1992.
- Enough is Enough 2.1
  
  30 September 2014 at 8:33 am
  
  It mirrors the British Labour Party selection process.
  - Mark 2.1.1
    
    30 September 2014 at 9:17 am
    
    So that makes it OK then
    - Enough is Enough 2.1.1.1
      
      30 September 2014 at 9:18 am
      
      no necessarily. I was just pointing out the error of Sry’s that it is not present anywhere else.
      - framu 2.1.1.1.1
        
        30 September 2014 at 9:23 am
        
        hes also got it backwards – the internal selection process happens before an election so its impossible for the membership to exert their will on the electorate
        
        what really happens is the party presents its team and the electorate does or doesnt choose it
        
        alwyn 2.1.1.1.1.1
        
        30 September 2014 at 9:54 am
        
        “what really happens is the party presents its team and the electorate does or doesnt choose it”
        Well that worked really well for the Labour Party didn’t it?
        Thumbs down all round for Labour.
        
        framu …
        
        30 September 2014 at 10:18 am
        
        and now they are selecting a new leader
        
        big whoop
        
        do you have a point beyond stating the obvious
  - Tracey 2.1.2
    
    30 September 2014 at 3:13 pm
    
    slylands isnt very good at mathematics. he thinks 20% is a majority. it explains why he supports ACT though.
Phil 3

30 September 2014 at 8:54 am

Last time I checked, Labour party members don’t get any say in who gets what portfolio.

Beyond that, you (and the reporters) are just grasping at straws.
just saying 4

30 September 2014 at 8:55 am

Very wryly put, Anthony.
That muffled shreiking is a bit of a joy to my ears.
It seems that taking on the “social” portfolios and demonstrating sufficient brutality is the woman’s career path is the National Party. I’m thinking of Jenny Shipley, but I think Ruth Richardson cut her teeth on the vulnerable and powerless on her way to finance. Her continued ascension was curtailed by a sudden squeamishness on the part of Jo public. I suspect this particular barrier has been largely neutralised now. Cruelity will out.
Tom Gould 5

30 September 2014 at 8:56 am

It was sickening to see Bennett slinking around Ashburton after having built her career on demonising beneficiaries for years, and then only days later, putting the boot in again with another dog whistle policy. Why does no one ever call her out on this dirty politics and hypocrisy? Or is she the one ‘in step’ with public opinion and those offended by her approach the ones ‘out of step’?
- just saying 5.1
  
  30 September 2014 at 9:06 am
  
  Why does no one ever call her out on this dirty politics and hypocrisy?
  
  Mana was deliberately destroyed by the five parties of the right (well ACT didn’t have much power but I’m sure they were cheering from the sidelines).
  
  That’s Labour’s moral principles for you.
  
  Turei and a few other Greens, have been great but drowned out by the chorus of hatred. The opposition parties would have needed to be unflinching and united to get any kind of public hearing on the issue.
  - waikatosinger 5.1.1
    
    30 September 2014 at 10:06 am
    
    And here was me thinking Hone destroyed himself by selling out to Dotcom, and Kelvin Davis helped finish him off and buried the political corpse. But no – apparently it was all part of a dastardly plot by the five parties of the right.
    
    I think you credit the parties of the right with far more deviousness and capability than they actually have. Things do happen, even in politics, that are not part of a right wing conspiracy hatched in a dark smoke filled room.
    - greywarbler 5.1.1.1
      
      30 September 2014 at 10:12 am
      
      Stick to singing. Hip-hop to it!
  - marty mars 5.1.2
    
    30 September 2014 at 10:45 am
    
    +1 js – yes, deliberately destroyed and imo the KDC stuff is/are red herrings designed to distract from the point – Hone and Mana not in the house. The gnats and their crew think longer term which is why Mana had to go and also why everyone with a pulse should be very very afraid of paula bennett getting more power or becoming (and I think she will) the eventual leader of the gnats – dark days ahead when that happens.
    - just saying 5.1.2.1
      
      30 September 2014 at 11:14 am
      
      Actually I shouldn’t have said “destroyed”. The movement continues, But Mana’s parliamentary voice has been silenced.
      
      When I heard Cunliffe playing the race-bigot card with his “wont work with race-based parties” in the last week of the campaign claiming it to be a point of ‘principle’ I really wondered how much lower they would/will go. Disgust and contempt aren’t strong enough words to describe what I felt.
      - Murray Olsen 5.1.2.1.1
        
        1 October 2014 at 1:54 am
        
        When did Cunliffe say that? Is there a link. I was already struggling with him having called Dotcom’s intervention reprehensible, but this would be the final straw for me. Saying that puts him in the same boat as Ansell, Jamie Whyte Power and that fat skinhead in Christchurch. There is also the little detail that Mana is not race-based.
        
        just saying 5.1.2.1.1.1
        
        1 October 2014 at 8:23 am
        
        It was in a clip from the TV news a few days before the election. If I knew all the details I would retrieve it for you, but I don’t. I turned the TV off.
The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 6

30 September 2014 at 9:06 am

That muffled shrieking sound you hear in the background is just Judith Collins expressing her full support. Pay it no mind.

Oh noes, division in the National Party! Whatever will they do?

Bit rich.
- Hanswurst 6.1
  
  30 September 2014 at 10:18 am
  
  Bit rich.
  
  … Katherine Rich?
  - adam 6.1.1
    
    30 September 2014 at 6:04 pm
    
    Katherine Rich corporations ditch
    Gormless fool right wing tool
    now you know you two rhyming couplets
    lets carry on without the f*&^wits
    
    Thanks Haswurst
Ffloyd 7

30 September 2014 at 9:10 am

Paulabennett being groomed. Shudder!!
- ianmac 7.1
  
  30 September 2014 at 9:46 am
  
  Grooming includes gentle stroking and massaging of bare back. “Oh no John! Giggle.”
  - phillip ure 7.1.1
    
    30 September 2014 at 10:49 am
    
    and of course..after she has been near beneficiaries..
    
    ..key probably grooms/de-louses her..
greywarbler 8

30 September 2014 at 10:08 am

I’m just reading a Joe Klein piece from The Guardian Year 2001 on the methods of Tony Blair to win support. Joe was in a line that Blair was working along, he shook hands on Joe’s right side, saw Joe in his peripheral vision, circled on the spot to greet someone behind him, circled back again and shook hands with the person on Joe’s left. Neat maneouvre.

Joe defines it, ‘he might have to be friendly for a moment. Waste of time. ‘It is a remarkable thing, really: a reflexive act of efficiency by a hyper-alert politician.” He refers to ‘Tony Blair on the campaign trail: how sleek he is, sleek as a shark’…that ‘fierce, metallic smile’ seems a bit shark-like…. Very much the same as Yek I think.

Joe notes, [British] ‘New Labour anal-compulsive tidiness of the project is often hilarious. Organising flags in the crowd, to the extent of taking from one Asian person and forcing onto another, a flagless woman. Very aware of photo effects. If you want to win there are lessons on management for Labour here? Plan, organise well and be alert. We definitely need more lerts.

And yek and Poorer will have that ability. Adjust your smile and frown, theatrically, show the appropriate face to whichever audience. Shake hands with the right people.
Fudge where necessary, be cool or effusive where appropriate.
joe90 9

30 September 2014 at 10:15 am

Groomed by Key, mentored by Osborne.
/

He then outlined some of the measures to achieve the extra £25bn in permanent spending cuts to achieve the surplus. These included:

• freezing working-age benefits for two years, saving more than £3bn. He said: “We can’t afford to spend £100bn on welfare payments for people of working age when we have such debts. Even with the reforming decisions Iain Duncan Smith and I have taken benefits have risen by more than earnings since Labour’s great recession. That is not sustainable for any nation and it is not fair either.

“Working-age benefits in Britain will have to be frozen for two years. This is the choice Britain needs to take to protect our economic stability and to secure a better future. The fairest way to reduce welfare bills is to make sure that benefits are not rising faster than the wages of the taxpayers who are paying for them.”

The chancellor made clear that pensioner benefits and disability benefits would be excluded.

• Reducing Whitehall departmental spending by at least the same rate for the first two years of the next parliament, saving £13bn.

• Maintaining restraint on public sector pay.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/29/george-osborne-working-age-benefits-frozen
Puckish Rogue 10

30 September 2014 at 10:21 am

I agree National should stop what they’re doing and immediately follow Labours lead, yeah right.

Theres a saying that goes something like if it ain’t broke don’t fix it and what Nationals doing is working so they don’t need to fix anything whereas Labour…well if it was a horse they’d take it out back and shoot it
- framu 10.1
  
  30 September 2014 at 10:36 am
  
  but in the nats case isnt it key himself thats the “it aint broke”?
  
  ergo – PB as successor is more of a case of fixing a future nat party with its only vote attractor no longer in the picture
  
  bennet is no key – i wouldnt look at this via a lens of current nat popularity as that is directly tied to JK
  - Puckish Rogue 10.1.1
    
    30 September 2014 at 12:04 pm
    
    I’ll be completely honest with you (no seriously) in the next three years I’ll have completely sorted out my retirement plans so whatever happens won’t really affect me a whole lot
    
    Sure it’d be nice for National to win again because the howls of the left are quite amusing (lets have a petition because we think somethings wrong with the result) but the reality is for me that if Labour get in it won’t make much of a difference
    
    Although I don’t think Bennet (at the moment) should be leader, reminds me a bit much of Shipley
    - framu 10.1.1.1
      
      30 September 2014 at 12:33 pm
      
      “so whatever happens won’t really affect me a whole lot”
      
      i wouldnt bank on that – unless your plan is to go somewhere where they dont do politics
      - Puckish Rogue 10.1.1.1.1
        
        30 September 2014 at 3:09 pm
        
        Well thats why I put in the whole lot bit, I mean of course the government of the day has an effect but on the whole unless the country goes to hell in a hand basket (which would only happen if the Greens got more MPs then Labour) it really won’t do much to affect me
    - cogito 10.1.1.2
      
      30 September 2014 at 1:21 pm
      
      “whatever happens won’t really affect me a whole lot”
      
      The words of an arrogant fool.
      - Puckish Rogue 10.1.1.2.1
        
        30 September 2014 at 3:12 pm
        
        Proper Planning and Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance and being that I’ve planned to try to ensure that whatever government gets doesn’t affect me too much means its not arrogance
        
        One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.1.2.1.1
        
        30 September 2014 at 3:23 pm
        
        More naivety than arrogance I suspect. Certainly your “analysis” of green policy is beyond childish.
        
        Your narrow focus on financial security is equally simplistic, even without allowing for the likelihood (such as it is – I have my doubts) of significant financial collapse in our lifetimes.
        
        You’ve worked for your self-proclaimed security, I’m sure, perhaps motivated by dread of poverty? What do you imagine dread of poverty does to people who see their opportunities and wages dwindling decade after decade?
        
        How do you suppose the death of collective bargaining is going to affect wage rates, after six years of wages going backwards?
        
        What do you care? All you have to worry about is extreme weather events destroying the clubhouse.
        
        cogito 10.1.1.2.1.2
        
        30 September 2014 at 4:19 pm
        
        It’s not only governments that send things belly up… look at how many hot-shot moneymen, developers, finance company directors etc have been done for fraud and corruption or have gone completely bust, and how many investors have been left without their life savings.
        
        Then there are any number of unforeseens… think of that poor guy who went under a truck in chch yesterday. It doesn’t take much for one’s life to be turned upside down, believe me…. one knock and you could end up like Michael Schumacher. Only a fool thinks he is bulletproof.
        
        Incidentally, did you see Peter Williams QC on Paul Henry last night – he’s spending $10,000 a month on cancer medication!
        
        Reality check, sunshine!
    - minarch 10.1.1.3
      
      30 September 2014 at 3:08 pm
      
      “I’ll be completely honest with you (no seriously) in the next three years I’ll have completely sorted out my retirement plans so whatever happens won’t really affect me a whole lot”
      
      you obviously haven’t realized the Middle Classes and Upper/middle classes are next & you voted for it.
      
      the poor and working class have already been squeezed dry, there’s nothing left ,
      
      but infinite growth requires resources, So your next my gullible friend…
      
      or perhaps you have some mistaken ideas about your real status in the world PR ?
      
      or are your really dumb enough to think the Fox isnt going to eat the fat chickens as well as the skinny ones ?
      
      of course not the skinny chickens are just easier to catch so they go first.
      - One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.1.3.1
        
        30 September 2014 at 3:10 pm
        
        Skin in the game? Me? But I’m chock full to the brim with personal responsibility!
      - Puckish Rogue 10.1.1.3.2
        
        30 September 2014 at 3:15 pm
        
        Yeah good luck with that
        
        Minarch 10.1.1.3.2.1
        
        30 September 2014 at 3:22 pm
        
        you got a problem with being the lender of last resort ?
        
        too bad really..
shorts 11

30 September 2014 at 10:35 am

If Bennet hasn’t the stomach… or has the cunning to know leaving her current position is strategically best for her “brand”… and has Key’s support in a move I worry for those stuck on state support – for the next Minister will probably be tougher and the next wave of reforms much more draconian than those we’ve seen enacted over the past 6 years

these are the people being not only left behind but also demonised. This next term of govt is going to be horrendous for those least able to cope
phillip ure 12

30 September 2014 at 10:51 am

“..That muffled shrieking sound you hear in the background is just Judith Collins expressing her full support. Pay it no mind..”

.heh..!
Not a PS Staffer 13

30 September 2014 at 1:03 pm

Key is NOT grooming Bennett for the leadership role.
Tories do not let their servants sit at the main table!

Key is keeping her focused and happy. Key is making sure Bennett, and her admirers, remain on-side and obedient.

Key will select someone who the banks, the large law firms and Federated Farmers are “comfortable” with.
- One Anonymous Bloke 13.1
  
  30 September 2014 at 1:34 pm
  
  That would be the whole point of the grooming, no?
  - Not a PS Staffer 13.1.1
    
    30 September 2014 at 5:10 pm
    
    The story above is about “grooming for succession”.
    
    My point is that she has not been picked to succeed to the Party Leader role for the reasons I outlined.
    - One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.1.1
      
      30 September 2014 at 7:45 pm
      
      No, your “reasons” are predicated on the notion that she is a “servant”, and yet you have provided no explanation of how she differs from John Key in this respect.
      
      I think your assertions are based on prejudice.
      - Murray Olsen 13.1.1.1.1
        
        1 October 2014 at 2:08 am
        
        They may be based on prejudices held by powerful Tories. Not may well be right.
ghostwhowalksnz 14

30 September 2014 at 1:27 pm

This is Bennett and her” 360 Spin”

On 10 July, on Third Degree, Bennett accepted that her government had failed Tania Billingsley;

“Could things have been handled differently? We’re the first ones that have said yes it should have been. But for her I feel incredibly sad that the incident has happened in the beginning. And that’s where most of her hurt and anger is.”

Again, after two days, Bennett’s views seemed to have changed, as this exchange on The Nation showed;

Lisa Owen: “Ok, so how do you think that your male colleagues handled the alleged assault on Tania Billingsley and the departure of the Malaysian diplomat? Did they lose sight of the victim? Did they trivialise that?”

Paula Bennett: “Well look I’m not prepared to go into what has happened in that case. But my short answer to that would be no.”

https://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/tag/paula-bennett/

So this is really high class bullshit, learnt at the feet of the master SharKey.

Admit it, but then when confronted by it deny it.

Its all very tricky
emergency mike 15

30 September 2014 at 1:32 pm

I’ve heard the Aussies laughed at us for electing a Merrill Lynch corporate manager, then they elected Tony Abbott. If we end up with Paula “Zip it sweetie” Benebash as PM we will reclaim the Stupid Trophy.

Aside from her general hideousness, I just can’t see how she’s ‘head of state’ material myself.
Fats 16

30 September 2014 at 3:00 pm

“The Nats prefer to do things the old fashioned way – smoke filled rooms, their members content to be dictated to.”

For sheer hypocrisy, Mr Robins deserves a medal. One reason why Labour’s in a mess is because Cunliffe was imposed on the caucus by a small group of unions. It’s not unlike Labor’s predicament across the Tasman, where Kevin Rudd had party backing but was loathed by anyone who actually had to work with him. He was imposed on the caucus. The rest is history.

Cunliffe was imposed on the Labour caucus. The rest is history. As for democratic methods, I’m sure the party management will make all the right noises, but I’d be surprised if the winning candidate truly has a mandate. That’s one reason why Labour’s in such a deep hole right now…

[lprent: Border line diversion. But close enough to dealing with the post that it isn’t worth a ban. However if I see too many of them you could find that you are commenting dangerously. FFS we provide Open Mike for people to push their own barrows. Use it so I don’t give at least a few people a day a 16 week holiday from commenting here.

I see that Fats already picked up a ban for diversion in another post… 😈 ]
- One Anonymous Bloke 16.1
  
  30 September 2014 at 3:08 pm
  
  Why do hate freedom of expression and association when it’s practised by the Left? Why do you make up lies and misrepresent reality?
  
  Cabinet Club says you’re a transparent hypocrite, motivated by hate.
  
  Choke on it.
- Bob 16.2
  
  1 October 2014 at 9:45 am
  
  Spot on Fats, in National, the members choose the local representative (in a democratic process) and the caucus then choose the leader that best fits the majority of MP’s and therefore (in theory) the majority of members.
  In Labour, the members choose the local representative (in a democratic process) then the caucus are landed with whoever the Unions prefer to be leader whether the Caucus likes it or not (if there is more than one leader nominated then there is obviously a split vote in caucus, this then gives the Unions an effective veto on what the majority of caucus may want i.e David Cunliffe).
  The rediculous thing is, people like Anthony Robins and OAB above think that this is more democratic than National. It gives the appearance on the outside that it is a more democratic way of doing things, but it is simply a way of giving the Unions more power over the party (only one of the six Unions actually let their members vote, the rest are dictated too via their delegates, very undemocratic) while causing disunity in caucus.
  Stupid process that will continue to hinder the Labour party.
  - framu 16.2.1
    
    1 October 2014 at 2:00 pm
    
    never mind the fact your wrong about the unions having the power over caucus – but how does national select their list MPs bob
    
    what your describing re: local reps is for electorates only?
    
    just thinking how the greens manage a one member one vote system and how that compares to nat or lab (obviously not having electorate MPs helps the greens selection process – but put that aside for now)
Stuart Munro 17

30 September 2014 at 3:07 pm

She’s a fitting successor to Bill English in finance, because she doesn’t have a clue about economics either. Great deputy for Key – stupid and loyal rather than inconveniently ambitious, and about 40 IQ points higher than Brownlee – almost as smart as Forrest Gump or pond scum – for a Gnat she’s downright stellar.
- higherstandard 17.1
  
  30 September 2014 at 3:18 pm
  
  But they still annihilate their opposites ?
  
  What’s that about ?
  - McFlock 17.1.1
    
    30 September 2014 at 3:33 pm
    
    There was a recent book about part of it.
    Not all of it, but a part.
    - higherstandard 17.1.1.1
      
      30 September 2014 at 3:51 pm
      
      If Labour think that a couple of bloggers are a large part of their problems then the election loss and leadership issues they’re having at he moment are the least of their problems.
      - framu 17.1.1.1.1
        
        30 September 2014 at 4:41 pm
        
        the book wasnt about a couple of bloggers – and your showing a stunning ignorance of how the news cycle and the role bloggers play in that, operates
        
        bit sad really that you still wont or cant get it – bet you complained about nanny state didnt you
        
        Tracey 17.1.1.1.1.1
        
        30 September 2014 at 4:44 pm
        
        you have to read everything he/she writes as being opposite, starting with the handle 😉
        
        higherstandard …
        
        30 September 2014 at 6:31 pm
        
        🙄
        
        higherstandard 17.1.1.1.1.2
        
        30 September 2014 at 6:32 pm
        
        Most of NZ met the revelations (if that’s what you can call them) within the book with a resounding yawn.
        
        Murray Olsen …
        
        1 October 2014 at 2:16 am
        
        Most of Aotearoa still wouldn’t know about the revelations. They would know that Key spoke about left wing smears, and that’s about it. Once farmers start losing their land, and the position of the ashprishnil becomes more precarious, people will remember that people at the top of government were playing silly games with a revolting piece of shit rather than doing their job. Slowly, they’ll wake up and turn on Key. Unfortunately, they might look to Winston First and the chemtrail party.
        
        framu …
        
        1 October 2014 at 7:51 am
        
        see how you just shifted the goal posts?
        
        werent we discussing whether the book was about a couple of bloggers or not?
- Tracey 17.2
  
  30 September 2014 at 3:18 pm
  
  she is an example of what people can do within a welfare system that gives them a helping hand. of course she and nats are doing the reverse so we can probably expect it to fail.
  - higherstandard 17.2.1
    
    30 September 2014 at 3:52 pm
    
    Yes our social welfare programme is positively third world 🙄
    - ghostwhowalksnz 17.2.1.1
      
      30 September 2014 at 4:14 pm
      
      So why are so many ‘clients’ wanting too shoot the Winz agents ?
      
      Never happened before ?
      - higherstandard 17.2.1.1.1
        
        30 September 2014 at 4:37 pm
        
        Not wanting to pre-empt the trial/investigation but I would be very surprised if there wasn’t mental health issues or drug abuse involved rather than fault on the part of WINZ or their workers.
        
        ghostwhowalksnz 17.2.1.1.1.1
        
        30 September 2014 at 5:52 pm
        
        The police say they have been inundated with similar threats!
        
        higherstandard …
        
        30 September 2014 at 6:29 pm
        
        See above
    - Tracey 17.2.1.2
      
      30 September 2014 at 4:45 pm
      
      are you saying that it offers the same help to single mothers today as bennett received?
      - higherstandard 17.2.1.2.1
        
        30 September 2014 at 6:30 pm
        
        No idea – I’d be interested to have a look if you’ve got the data.
Jay 18

1 October 2014 at 2:27 am

Threats against winz have always been common for loads of reasons, they just got more publicity after the shootings. Drawing the conclusion that there must be a systemic problem at winz is like blaming rising domestic violence on women. I mean, there must be a good reason their husbands smack them over right? These shootings were selfish, cowardly and evil, and the last moments of those two poor ladies must have been terrifying. I expect the perpetrator felt his perceived hardships justified him in committing crimes that have now caused immeasurably more hardship for the families of the victims. None of us know if he was treated fairly or not, but if his way to win an argument is to murder two people it suggests to me that this guy is likely to be less reasonable than winz or any of its staff, so I’m on their side at this stage. Justifying him or others in any way when they threaten people or are violent is text-book victim blaming, and we see it now in the most extreme case of male assaults female imaginable. Disgraceful
- just saying 18.1
  
  1 October 2014 at 7:34 am
  
  It’s not the same as, or equivalent to domestic violence, Jay.
  The power is in the other direction.
  I don’t know of anyone who is blaming the victims, but I do know from personal and others’ experience that there is a sytemic problem at WINZ and I think it is highly likely that it was a major contributing factor in this tragedy. That these two women were victims, of not just the “perpetrator” but probably also in a large part of a system in which those with the power are sitting in flash offices on fat salaries never having to personally deal with any of the consequences of their decisions – that’s a tragedy too.
  People are hurting and there is only so much any person can take. WINZ offices never had security guards when they were social security agencies. The system was never perfect, but the staff never had to be physically protected, at all times, from the people in hardship their jobs exist to help.
  There is no excuse for violence – physical, psychological, systemic, any kind. But the fact is that violence begets violence and many more WINZ clients at the end of their tether will kill themselves than the person across the desk.
- framu 18.2
  
  1 October 2014 at 7:56 am
  
  your making the all too common mistake of not differentiating between reasons and excuses
  
  you discuss reasons to understand
  you put forward excuses to excuse
  
  discussing why person x did crime y isnt an attempt to shift blame – in fact its has to accept blame first.
  We cant discuss why jay (for example) did a whole lot of burglary untill we first accept jays guilt in said burglaries
Jay 19

1 October 2014 at 10:07 am

We cannot go down the path of Justifying violence in any way whatsoever. Hundreds of thousands deal with winz and other agencies and don’t use violence when they don’t get their own way. If anyone has a right to speak out and blame winz it’s the families of the victims. Notice that they haven’t.

How can we even consider sympathising with the offenders without therefore setting us on the road to Justifying their actions. Are your children allowed to belt each other or you when they don’t get their own way? No. In this country we are taught that violence or threats are never justified unless to physically defend ourselves.

How dare you say that people are pushed to doing these things. Is that what you do when the going gets tough? The people I have met who threaten or assault others are invariably violent and selfish bullies. This should not even be a topic for argument. Governments shouldn’t be reconsidering policy based on how many of their employees are being threatened, assaulted or murdered by disgruntled members of the public.
- just saying 19.1
  
  1 October 2014 at 11:00 am
  
  Did you read the responses to your comment, Jay? Because this is a classic straw-man reply to them.
- framu 19.2
  
  1 October 2014 at 12:55 pm
  
  who are you even talking to jay?
  
  “Governments shouldn’t be reconsidering policy based on how many of their employees are being threatened, assaulted or murdered by disgruntled members of the public.”
  
  wow – compassion and humanity is a two way street dont you know. If the govt has put in place a policy that has its staff being exposed to increased risk then the govt should consider changing the policy – but at the same time that doesnt make the perpertrators of said violence innocent
  
  is that really such a hard concept to grasp?
SeanExile 20

1 October 2014 at 11:13 am

Ok, so now after the nutty loony wing of The Standard posters, half of which didnt vote labour, have decided that everyone who isnt DC or further leftwing is a neoliberal. Hmm must be great to live in that world where as soon as you disagree you call a person a neoliberal and put the hands over the ears and scream out loud neo liberal. Seems so constructive. My 1 year old uses the same strategy. Wonder how well it really works in adult world…

Paula Bennet groomed for succession, possibly.
And if she is good for National. They need to ensure that they have a future after John Key. I know way to little about National to say who that is a good candidate among them, but forward thinking, grooming potentials seem to be the right way to do things.
Having met Paula Bennet, she is no John Key and she is distinctively more beatable than he is. Thats good for the Labour party. And if you look 5 years into the future, a national under Paula Bennet, id say we with the right kind of leader stand a chance then. That is if we ensure the monsterloony lefties who calls everyone a neoliberal and puts their hands above their ears screaming when someone disagrees dont destroy us from within.
However, fortunately for us who prefers a successful Labour, a Labour who can hold office, some of the unions seems to have realised that they get more from a Labour party thats electable than from a Labour party that has had its worst electionresults since 1922 and who is led by a leader that just isnt appealing to the electorate.

Question is, how many more election losses do we need to suffer before the activist members understand this and realises that the days of electability is preferable to those who want to advance a Labour agenda.
- cogito 20.1
  
  1 October 2014 at 12:09 pm
  
  Absolutely…. ditch the red flag and go for soft pastel blue instead. Never mind all those who sweated blood and tears, soft blue is what it’s all about today…. Maybe we could even still have Paula Bennett, just with pastel blue lipstick.
  
  Not me mate.
word 21

1 October 2014 at 3:40 pm

What happened with can’t fix anything Steven Joyce then? he is ambitious to take that top spot.
Craig Y 22

2 October 2014 at 3:07 pm

Word, I think that Bennett will serve a period of apprenticeship as Steven Joyce’s deputy after National loses any forthcoming election in the intermediate future. If Joyce proves an unsatisfactory Leader of the Opposition, then Bennett succeeds him after he’s served a term in that office and lost an election.
- word 22.1
  
  2 October 2014 at 3:39 pm
  
  @Craig. I think you are being hoodwinked if you think Bennett will ever be a leader. She’s a foot soldier and has been useful as a distraction. But the tragic, dire and avoidable consequences of her administration of MSD is the reason she is being removed and placed elsewhere, so her image is not tarnished further. Bennett will always be someone’s lackey.